IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION. Plaintiffs,

Transcription

1 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID 2474 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION TEXAS, WISCONSIN, ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, ARIZONA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, PAUL LePAGE, Governor of Maine, Governor Phil Bryant of the State of MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA, NEILL HURLEY, and JOHN NANTZ, v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ALEX AZAR, in his Official Capacity as SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and DAVID J. KAUTTER, in his Official Capacity as Acting COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:18-cv O CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA by and through its Department of Commerce, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, and WASHINGTON, Intervenor-Defendants. INTERVENOR STATES RESPONSE TO JULY 16, 2018 COURT ORDER 1

2 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2475 The Intervenor States submit this response to the Court s July 16, 2018 Order directing the parties to file any additional information they wish to present in opposition to considering the issues raised by the briefing on Plaintiffs Application for a Preliminary Injunction on summary judgment. ECF No The Intervenor States understand that Order not as a request to present additional evidence or arguments they might submit in support of (or in opposition to) a motion for summary judgment, but instead a request to identify for the Court what evidence and argument they might wish to raise during summary judgment briefing. The Intervenor States respectfully submit that this Court should not convert the briefing on the preliminary injunction application into a motion for summary judgment. The Intervenor States opposition to the application for a preliminary injunction focused on the legal and evidentiary standards that govern that relief. At the summary judgment stage, however, the Intervenor States would be afforded an opportunity to more fully brief legal issues that the preliminary injunction legal standard and page limitations did not permit previously. These issues include, but are not limited to: (1) whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision; (2) whether the minimum coverage requirement under 26 U.S.C. 5000A may now be sustained under the Commerce Clause, see State Defendants Br. in Opp. to Plaintiffs Application for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 91, at 18 n.17; (3) whether an injunction limited to the 20 Plaintiff States is legally supportable and whether it would harm the Intervenor States, 1 (4) whether regulations promulgated under the Affordable Care Act remain 1 The Plaintiff States requested this narrower injunctive relief for the first time in their Preliminary Injunction Reply Brief. See ECF No. 175 at

3 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID 2476 lawful if the minimum coverage provision, or any other provisions, are struck down; (5) whether the Supreme Court s modern severability precedents are consistent with longstanding limits on judicial power, Murphy v. Nat l Collegiate Athletic Ass n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1487 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring); and (6) whether Plaintiffs can meet their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to a permanent injunction, see, e.g., ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (identifying factors that a plaintiff seeking permanent injunctive relief must satisfy). If the Court nevertheless intends to move straight to summary judgment at this time, it should permit the parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing which will enable the parties to place all of the legal and factual issues in this case before the Court. 2 See Underwood v. Hunter, 604 F.2d 367, 369 (5th Cir. 1979) (when only a preliminary injunction is pending, we cannot say with assurance that the parties will present everything they have. The very intimation of mortality when summary judgment is at issue assures us that the motion will be rebutted with every factual and legal argument available. ). Based upon all of the foregoing, the Intervenor States in agreement with the Plaintiffs urge the Court to decline the Federal Defendants invitation to convert the pending preliminary injunction application into another motion. If the Court determines that summary judgment is appropriate at this time, however, the Intervenor States respectfully request that the Court grant the parties a 30- day period to file supplemental briefing on the additional issues identified above (and perhaps others). 2 Whether the Court rules on the merits under the preliminary injunction standard or under the summary judgment framework, the Court s ruling should be a final appealable order or a final judgment so that the parties may promptly seek appellate review. 3

4 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID 2477 Dated July 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California JULIE WENG-GUTIERREZ Senior KATHLEEN BOERGERS Supervising NIMROD P. ELIAS /s/ Neli N. Palma NELI N. PALMA California State Bar No I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box Sacramento, CA Telephone: (916) Fax: (916) Neli.Palma@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Intervenors-Defendants GEORGE JEPSEN Attorney General of Connecticut JOSEPH R. RUBIN Associate Attorney General State of Connecticut MATTHEW P. DENN Attorney General of Delaware ILONA KIRSHON Deputy State Solicitor DAVID J. LYONS State of Delaware RUSSELL A. SUZUKI Attorney General of Hawaii HEIDI M. RIAN ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI Deputy Solicitor General State of Hawaii 4

5 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID 2478 LISA MADIGAN Attorney General of Illinois DAVID F. BUYSSE Deputy Chief, Public Interest Division ANNA P. CRANE Public Interest Counsel MATTHEW V. CHIMIENTI, Special Litigation Bureau State of Illinois ANDY BESHEAR Attorney General of Kentucky LA TASHA BUCKNER Executive Director, Office of Civil and Environmental Law S. TRAVIS MAYO TAYLOR PAYNE Assistant Attorneys General Commonwealth of Kentucky MAURA HEALEY Attorney General of Massachusetts STEPHEN P. VOGEL Commonwealth of Massachusetts OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of Minnesota SCOTT IKEDA State of Minnesota by and through its Department of Commerce GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General of New Jersey JEREMY M. FEIGENBAUM ANGELA JUNEAU BEZER State of New Jersey 5

6 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID 2479 BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Acting Attorney General of New York STEVEN C. WU Deputy Solicitor General LISA LANDAU Bureau Chief, Health Care Bureau ELIZABETH CHESLER, Health Care Bureau State of New York JOSHUA H. STEIN Attorney General of North Carolina SRIPRIYA NARASIMHAN Deputy General Counsel State of North Carolina ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General of Oregon HENRY KANTOR Special Counsel to the Attorney General SCOTT KAPLAN State of Oregon PETER KILMARTIN Attorney General of Rhode Island MICHAEL W. FIELD MARIA R. LENZ Special State of Rhode Island THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General of Vermont BENJAMIN D. BATTLES Solicitor General State of Vermont MARK R. HERRING Attorney General of Virginia TOBY J. HEYTENS Solicitor General MATTHEW R. MCGUIRE Deputy Solicitor General Commonwealth of Virginia 6

7 Case 4:18-cv O Document 182 Filed 07/30/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID 2480 ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General of Washington JEFFREY G. RUPERT Chief, Complex Litigation Division JEFFREY T. SPRUNG State of Washington KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia ROBYN R. BENDER VALERIE M. NANNERY District of Columbia 7